Help identifying the fallacy, please...

[none]

I came across the argument that if abiogenesis occurred it had to occur a specific way, and the way that abiogenesis had to occur is physically impossible based on impossibility of the specific way.

I don't mind talking about abiogenesis but this particular argument seems self deprecating.
I am not sure how to respond reasonably other than to say it is illogical, I was hoping for something more elaborate and definitive.

I looked over the list of fallacies on wiki, but my brain seems like it is getting overloaded so I may have missed the identifying fallacy...
So any help as to identifying the fallacy? to me it just seems illogical and weird, mostly word salad...

 

[ryan]

I would love to meet the person who has falsified every possible way that life could have formed in the universe since the Big Bang. This person would truly be a god.

 

[none]

Well then you might like his definition of life....
life is spiritual and cannot be encapsulated...

 

[ryan]

Well then you might like his definition of life....
life is spiritual and cannot be encapsulated...

We won't know that until we know every detail of the history of the universe, which is probably impossible to know without creating a perfect simulation.

The fact that quantum mechanics leaves a probability for anything as being possible, then we can only imagine what could have happened in the last 14 billion years of the universe.

 

[none]

or you could say biological functions performed by a discrete entity is life.
it just seems so confusing, why would we say somebody who is walking and talking is alive.... it is absurd therefore the definition of life must be functionless....

 

[ryan]

or you could say biological functions performed by a discrete entity is life.
it just seems so confusing, why would we say somebody who is walking and talking is alive.... it is absurd therefore the definition of life must be functionless....

Yeah, so I would think that there needs to be more constraints on the definition of life. As random as it seems, there are some constants that all life as we know have in common.

Most importantly, it is our definition, so it is up to us to decide what it is.

 

[Bomb#20]

I came across the argument that if abiogenesis occurred it had to occur a specific way, and the way that abiogenesis had to occur is physically impossible based on impossibility of the specific way.

I don't mind talking about abiogenesis but this particular argument seems self deprecating.
I am not sure how to respond reasonably other than to say it is illogical, I was hoping for something more elaborate and definitive.

I looked over the list of fallacies on wiki, but my brain seems like it is getting overloaded so I may have missed the identifying fallacy...
So any help as to identifying the fallacy? to me it just seems illogical and weird, mostly word salad...

So basically, "This way of getting from non-life to life is impossible; therefore all ways of getting from non-life to life are impossible."? Sounds like a "Hasty Generalization".

 

[Underseer]

Also, take time to find out what he thinks abiogenesis is. Most creationists think abiogenesis is the same thing as spontaneous creation. Since fully-formed mice don't pop up out of jars of peanut butter, abiogenesis is therefore false and evolution is therefore false.

 

[braces_for_impact]

From your description it sounds like False Dilemma.

A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

 

[none]

Also, take time to find out what he thinks abiogenesis is. Most creationists think abiogenesis is the same thing as spontaneous creation. Since fully-formed mice don't pop up out of jars of peanut butter, abiogenesis is therefore false and evolution is therefore false.

he stopped vacillating with those ideas but I don't imagine he wont vacillate with them again...

 

[none]

braces_for_impact, thank you I think that hit the nail on the head.
much appreciated.

using the false dilemma fallacy to change the meaning of the word abiogenesis which is "moving the goalposts" is best explanation I figure....

he doesn't want to admit abiogenesis occurred at any cost it seems...
introduced: hypothesis are ideas and are not possible or impossible they are just ideas.

I said your ideas are insane...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

How We Are Prevented From Criticizing the Clean Air Act

I came across the argument that if abiogenesis occurred it had to occur a specific way, and the way that abiogenesis had to occur is physically impossible based on impossibility of the specific way.

I don't mind talking about abiogenesis but this particular argument seems self deprecating.
I am not sure how to respond reasonably other than to say it is illogical, I was hoping for something more elaborate and definitive.

I looked over the list of fallacies on wiki, but my brain seems like it is getting overloaded so I may have missed the identifying fallacy...
So any help as to identifying the fallacy? to me it just seems illogical and weird, mostly word salad...

The fallacy is called "begging the question." Other examples:

"God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist."



Now, to go where Netwits fear to go:

"How can you say that homosexuality is not a sexuality? It wouldn't be called "homosexuality" if it wasn't a sexuality."

Marbury v. Madison "We interpret the Constitution as giving us the right to interpret the Constitution."

 

[none]

^observed... probably true... it's been a while